My internet access has been down all weekend so I haven't had a chance to respond before now. I am frankly amazed that the outrage with which snowbird denied that she condoned the acts ascribed to God in the Old Testament was matched only by the fervour with which she defended those same actions.
For example:
I accept the fact that the Israelites were instructed by God to wipe out the nations of Canaan, but my condoning of either's actions doesn't enter the picture because I have faith (based on the prior and subsequent acts of God) that it was the right and just thing to do.
Accepting that something "was the right and just thing to do" is the same as condoning it. By saying that the genocide and child rape ordered by her god was "right and just" snowbird is not only condoning those actions but endorsing them.
Further, she "see[s] nothing barbarous" in a young girl being stoned to death on suspicion of premarital sex, she sees a rape victim being forced to marry her rapist as a way of keeping people "morally upright" and "restoring [the victim's] dignity", and so on.
Her eight statements of her position make it quite clear that she considers these records to be true and accurate accounts of the actions of a righteous god.
snowbird, you may consider me arrogant and crass for refusing to allow you to have it both ways, but if you continue to condone, endorse or defend the brutal actions of the Old Testament god, I will continue to point out that you are doing so. I do not think I have been in any way abusive or that I have attacked you but you are right that my issue is personal. It is a condemnation of the person (you) who has defended and continues to defend the most brutal savage actions of a barbaric Bronze Age tribe and their bloodthirsty war god. I find such behaviour disgusting and grossly immoral and I will not stop saying so.